With respect to injury, in this investigation the same factors as those used in the first investigation were looked at. These include effects on sales volumes, market shares. production, capacity utilisation, profits, sales prices, employment and investment. The injury analysis is based, on the one hand, on the situation of the overall Community producers and, on the other hand, on the information provided by the Community industry (the 21 co-operating Community producers). The analysis of the injury factors relating to the 21 co-operating Community producers focused specifically on the product concerned. Other activities, such as construction of cruise ships, of military vessels and repairing activities, have not been taken into account for the purpose of the first and the updating investigations.

The following analysis is based on international statistics covering world sales volume in terms of new orders. based on CGT. The use of international statistics rather than the replies to the questionnaires provided by the 21 co-operating producers, was due to the fact that, on a sector by sector basis, no valid market share trend could be established for the co-operating producers which for certain periods only secured few or no orders at all. This is namely explained by the nature of the product. Indeed, recording new orders during one year may result in full capacity utilisation for the next year and therefore no new order. Furthermore, while certain shipyards specialise in specific sectors, others produce a range of ship types and switch between types, from one year to another.

Even though this is an updating exercise for the year 2001, it would be inappropriate and misleading to only compare the developments of the market between the end of the first investigation period (the calendar year 2000 in this case) and the year 2001. When possible, preference was given to the analysis of trends over the whole period 1997 to 2001, in view of the production time of the ships, the capacity of the different yards and, therefore, the underlying effect on the order books of the shipyards. The effect of these elements were exacerbated by the unusual circumstances of the year 2000, which was an extraordinary year in terms of generation of new orders for the reasons explained above (see heading 2.2). In the analysis per sector, the preference to the examination of trends over both the first and the current investigation period could however be given only in those sectors which have experienced an overall significant ordering activity during all the years under investigation. Aa can be seen from table 1, this was not the case in certain sectors (e.g. the LNGs sector) for which the overall ordering activity became significant only during a more limited period of time. In these cases, the relevant period only consisted of the years when the activity became really meaningful in terms of volume of new orders.

For these reasons, as shown in the table below, the analysis of the evolution of sales volume and market shares refers to the first and the current investigation periods.

The decrease of the absolute level of Korean new orders in 2001 is mainly explained by the extraordinary high level of orders secured during the year 2000 (+60% compared to 1999). Korean shipyards therefore started the year 2001 with a relatively full order book. However, it should be noted that, with the exception of the year 2000. the level of new orders secured by Korean shipyards in 2001 was the highest ever recorded, as shown in table 2 above. Korean orders represented around 30% of all new orders during that year, slightly behind Japen.

　

The 2001 Community volume of new orders decreased by around 15% compared to the year 2000 and approximately equals the level it reached in 1997.

　

In absolute terms, only China and Japan could increase or maintain their volume of new orders in 2001 as compared to 2000.

　

In terms of 5 years averages, the Korean volume almost doubled from 3 731 000 CGT for the period 1992/96 to 7 077 000 CGT for the period 1997/2001, while the Community and Japan had to face a decrease of their new orders during the same period of around 5%.

In terms of market shares. Korea faced a significant decrease of 8.5 percentage points between 2000 and 2001. The market share held in 2001 roughly corresponds to its 1997 level.

　

The Community producers' market share remained stable in 2001 compared to the previous year, at a level comparable to 1997. After experiencing a significant market share decrease of 5 percentage points between 1998 and 1999, they stabilised their market share during the last two years. This was certainly favoured by the fact that, as explained above, many orders were placed in December 2000, towards the end of the validity of the European operating subsidy scheme.

　

As a result of their increasing absolute volume of new orders, China and Japan could increase their share of the market during the same period.

　

On a 5 years average basis, excluding cruise ships, Korea increased its market share from 20.8% to 33.0% while the Community and Japan respectively decreased theirs by 3.6 and 8.6 percentage points; including cruise ships Korea increased its markct share from 19.9% to 31.2% while the shares held by the Community and Japan fell by 2.5 and 8.5 percentage points respectively.

　

The analysis of this overall picture by type of vessel gives the following result:

　

　

In terms of market shares per sector, it should be noted that, with the exception of the LNGs sector, Korea's market share in 2001 decreased in all the different sectors. As explained above, this is due to a particularly high rate of new ordering in the preceding year and accordingly a relatively full order book, allowing the Koreans to focus on the higher added value and expanding sector, i.e. the LNGs sector, where they held a share of the market of almost 80% in 2001 (compared to 47% in 2000). This was confirmed by the Korean Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy (MOCIE) in its report on Korea Shipbuilding activity⁵.

　

Despite this decrease in market shares, Korea remains the leader in terms of new orders for the product and chemical tankers, container ships and oil tankers sectors. In the passenger and RORO ferries or bulk carriers sectors the Koreans did not obtain any new order in 2001, although they were major players in these segments in previous years.

　

As for the Community shipyards, like in the previous years, no orders were placed in the bulk carriers and oil tankers sectors in 2001. They recovered part of their lost market shares in the product and chemical tankers as well as in the container ship sectors, without however reaching their 1997 level. In the LNGs marke the Community shipyards secured some orders in 2000 but were unable to maintain their market share in 2001. Their market share reached 21% in 2000 but decreased thereafter to around 7% in 2001. In 2001, the LNGs sector continued to be dominated by the Koreans who held 80% of the world new orders.

　

If one studies the evolution since 1997, the Community market share significantly decreased while Korea's significantly increased in the following sectors; product and chemical tankers, container ships. For LNG tankers, Korea has had a dominant share compared with the EU over the last 5 years, although the total world market in this segment was much smaller prior to 2000 and 2001.

　

In the passenger and RORO ferries, the Community shipyards were traditionally the largest world supplier, but even in this segment the Community share decreased to some extent.

　

KSA has claimed that during the current investigation period, the Community shipbuilding industry increased its market share in various sectors, and in particular in the passenger and RORO ferries sector.

　

Even if the market share of the Community producers improved in the year 2001 compared to the previous year, it has been shown above that, on a longer time period, i.e, in the period 1997 to 2001, the Community producers' overall market share decreased. As to the strengthening of the Community shipyards in the passenger and RORO ferry sector, the statistics included in the Table 4 clearly show that the alleged improvement did not take place in 2001.

　

On the basis of the above, the claim made by KSA has to be rejected.